Judgment :- M. Karpagavinayagam, J. The preposterous prayer made in this writ petition filed as a public interest litigation is for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to consider Rahul Dravid as Captain for Indian Test Cricket series and Sehwag as Vice Captain and for one day international Test Sehwag as Captain and Kaif or Yuvaraj as Vice Captain and also consider talented players like Ramesh, Badani and other players and junior players mentioned at paragraph 18 of the affidavit, namely A.T.Rayudu, Shikhar Dhawan, Jesuraj, R.Sathis and Sreejith, on rotation basis for both the form of matches as followed by Australian Cricket Board. 2. At the outset, we are constrained to say that it is quite strange for an Advocate practising in this Court to take the task of filing this public interest litigation before this Court, seeking for a direction to the respondent-Board of Control for Cricket in India and also for a direction for considering some named persons as Captain and Vice-Captain and other reliefs. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner who is appearing before this Court as a party-in-person, had chosen to issue notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code to all the respondents on 29.1.2005 itself seeking for the same relief and the same was received by all the respondents. 4. In the said notice under section 80 C.P.C., it is stated by the petitioner that if no positive result is reported, the petitioner will be constrained to file a suit before the appropriate Civil Court. 5. When the petitioner approached the Board through notice under Section 80 C.P.C. before moving the Civil Court as proposed by him, curiously, the petitioner had now chosen to approach this Court by way of filing the writ petition as public interest litigation, seeking for the same relief through suitable directions as set out above. 6. It is well settled law that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the pleas of this nature cannot be canvassed, especially, when the respondent-Board of Control for Cricket in India, will not come within the meaning of 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 7. 6. It is well settled law that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the pleas of this nature cannot be canvassed, especially, when the respondent-Board of Control for Cricket in India, will not come within the meaning of 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 7. Further, having chosen to send Section 80 C.P.C. notice, it is not proper for the Advocate (the party-in-person herein) to file this public interest litigation seeking for the prayers as stated above, making so many assertions which could be disputed by the other side. 8. The Supreme Court recently deprecated the practice of Advocates coming as parties-in-person and filing public interest litigations in the case of Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware vs. State of Maharashtra (2004 (5) C.T.C. 748 = JT 2004 (10) SC 561). 9. Furthermore, as laid down by the Apex Court in the decision reported in 2004 (3) S.C.C. 349 (Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. State of W.B.), the filing of the public interest litigation (PIL) should not result in precious judicial time being wasted and therefore, we are of the view that the party-in-person who is a practising lawyer, approached this Court to seek for the said monstrous prayers, which would aim to waste this Court's time or to gain publicity. 10. Therefore, while dismissing the petition, we are of the view that adequate costs have to be imposed on the petitioner/party-in-person who has wasted this Court's time. Hence, the petitioner/party-in-person is directed to pay the costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as donation to the Madras High Court Advocates' Association towards the Medical Aid Fund, within one week from today. W.P.M.P. is closed. 11. Post the writ petition for reporting compliance on 18.3.2005.